Sometimes you don't even have to work to prove your point -- somebody does it for you. The above post contains all of the fallacies, exaggerations, and misinformed ideas I (and others) have previously described. Some sort of congratulations are in order.
If you wouldn't mind my asking, which post were you referring to?
Yours. It perpetuates all of the common myths and fallacies, and dismisses all of the arguments against them using typical misrepresentation tactics.
Thanks for responding. What you see and describe was not my intention. It is possible that you are correct and I am completely incorrect. Or perhaps you misinterpreted something I wrote (that is far more likely because I have read your posts and agreed with what you said to a great extent) - or something in between. Like any normal person, I will be more likely to withdraw whatever erroneous statement I made if you express your disagreement in a direct response, without sarcasm, and backed by specific statements.
Thanks for responding. What you see and describe was not my intention. It is possible that you are correct and I am completely incorrect. Or perhaps you misinterpreted something I wrote (that is far more likely because I have read your posts and agreed with what you said to a great extent) - or something in between. Like any normal person, I will be more likely to withdraw whatever erroneous statement I made if you express your disagreement in a direct response, without sarcasm, and backed by specific statements.
Sorry, but I do get tired of having to repeat myself. I think it should be very clear where I disagree with your remarks, if only you'd read what I've already written. Like any normal person, I get a little annoyed when repetition is demanded.
You must know for instance that the SEC is currently investigating whether Apple properly disclosed information about Steve's health in the period leading up to his liver transplant. So you cannot accurately say that he is entitled to complete privacy. It does come down to what was disclosed and when, and how the rules on disclosure are interpreted. Consequently it is very annoying to have the concept constantly repeated that disclosure is a matter of people being "nosy." You can't simply dismiss the entire disclosure issue that way. It's simply inaccurate.
Steve Jobs has served his function at Apple, and it's time for him to go.
I was not happy when he came back in the first place, he was fired in the '80s for a good reason, and that reason never went away.
Demote him to head of marketing, or fire him, Apple.
If you've read my diatribes re: Tyrant S. Jobs, you know I agree with you; however, some people worship him. Why, I cannot fathom. One poster on this thread referred to him as Apple's "savior". I guess some people thought Jim Jones was their savior and worshipped him. The "Heaven's Gate" programers thought their leader was their savior. Charles Manson and David Koresh had that kind of a following, also. I think Jobs has brainwashed us just as those 'saviors' had done to their followers. SJ has held Apple's OS's over our heads and foisted sub par, obscenely expensive computers on us. In order to use those Apple OS's, we've purchased those computers, glorified them, and have been described as a cult by non-believers because we've done so.
Wait, now. Those members who blindly worship him are going to pounce on us disbelievers and pour the wrath of hell onto us. We have, with great audacity, besmirched their God and their religion. We'll soon know who those 'fundamentalists' are.
This thread is certainly turning into Baloney Central.
Somebody should look up the definition of the word "savior." For those who are too lazy, it is not a religious term. It means "a person who saves something or someone." It would take a major effort of willful historical revisionism to argue that the leadership Steve Jobs provided had nothing to do with saving Apple from their virtually derelict state. How could anyone not know that? I mean, we're not exactly talking obscure or ancient history here, though you might think so by the way some people talk.
The utter nonsense some people spout, it boggles the mind.
Sorry, but I do get tired of having to repeat myself. I think it should be very clear where I disagree with your remarks, if only you'd read what I've already written. Like any normal person, I get a little annoyed when repetition is demanded.
You must know for instance that the SEC is currently investigating whether Apple properly disclosed information about Steve's health in the period leading up to his liver transplant. So you cannot accurately say that he is entitled to complete privacy. It does come down to what was disclosed and when, and how the rules on disclosure are interpreted. Consequently it is very annoying to have the concept constantly repeated that disclosure is a matter of people being "nosy." You can't simply dismiss the entire disclosure issue that way. It's simply inaccurate.
You don't need to repeat anything for me because I have read your posts and I already said that I agree to a great extent. I did not demand repetition, I asked for an explanation on your discourteous, indirect and sarcastic remarks on a reply to another person- and got nothing satisfactory.
I agree with your second paragraph and it contradicts nothing of what I wrote. If you want to debate it point by point, fine with me. Otherwise, a simple "sorry" would more than do.
You don't need to repeat anything for me because I have read your posts and I already said that I agree to a great extent. I did not demand repetition, I asked for an explanation on your discourteous, indirect and sarcastic remarks on a reply to another person- and got nothing satisfactory.
I agree with your second paragraph and it contradicts nothing of what I wrote. If you want to debate it point by point, fine with me. Otherwise, a simple "sorry" would more than do.
I am not apologetic, and see no reason to be apologetic. If you're talking about insulting and discourteous, consider your characterization of people who would like to see Apple follow the SEC rules that apply to all public corporations as being cynical, nosy gossipers, and lacking in decency. If you intended anything else but insults by selecting these terms, it's difficult to know what it was.
Stress may have been a factor. He recently married an Asian woman who was 25 years younger.
It's not as if the finance industry is a walk in the park stress-wise, and the guy lived in it for decades. He did pretty darn well for himself money-wise, but we all still die eventually.
Also, does the race matter here, are asians supposed to be particularly stress inducing marriage partners? Are you playing on stereotypes here? Seems to be pretty odd that the race and age difference are the only two pieces of information you gave regarding his wife.
It's not as if the finance industry is a walk in the park stress-wise, and the guy lived in it for decades. He did pretty darn well for himself money-wise, but we all still die eventually.
Also, does the race matter here, are asians supposed to be particularly stress inducing marriage partners? Are you playing on stereotypes here? Seems to be pretty odd that the race and age difference are the only two pieces of information given regarding his wife.
That was a real classy response to an ignorant post.
Thank you for the post. No Bashing here, I really mean it.
I want to apologize to AI members for losing my cool in an earlier post. In allowing my negative feelings toward SJ to emerge, I realize I went a little too far. I am, at heart, a peaceable - love-thy-neighbor guy - except when attacked.
Unfortunately, there is something about SJ's high handedness that just pushes my buttons. That head of steam has been building for quite some time and has been erupting for the last few weeks.
Again, mea culpa.
Dr. Millmoss, it may not be apparent to you that SJ has a God complex, but it is certainly apparent to me. Are there other AI members who think that? I couldn't say.
Dr. Millmoss, you came aboard AppleInsider in April of this year and have already spread nearly a thousand posts over this forum. The tone of your posts reflects that you, like SJ, also may have feelings of superiority.
Dr. Millmoss, you, a newcomer, appear to be attempting to rise to the level of guru for AI. I believe AI forum was doing quite nicely before your pearls of wisdom, thank you very much.
So, Dr. Milmoss, please, stay off your high horse and don't criticize or lecture other members until you see to your own short-comings. In spite of what you may think about yourself, you don't 'know better' than all the other AI members.
Aside to AI members: The above paragraphs were my nice way of asking, "Who the hell do you think you are?" But, I wouldn't actually come out and say that to Dr. Millmoss's face. I'm too much of a gentleman. He's the one making rude put-downs.
Dr. Millmoss, please note that I don't enjoy being attacked,. Don't start a feud by dissing a fellow AI member. Keep that in mind when you respond to this or any other member's post. Remember, you started this - uh - dialog. On second thought, maybe you should just 'consider the source' and ignore this post entirely. I wouldn't want you to have to 'lower' yourself to my level.
BTW, Dr. Millmoss, are you an M.D,, Ph.D, or is the Dr. an affectation? You needn't answer that, either. Consider it a rhetorical question. I wouldn't want to embarrass you as you tried to do to me.
I too think the comparison of Jobs' and Wasserstein's cases is not exactly of the apples to apples variety.
Wasserstein's illness was a lot more straightforward to diagnose and treat than Jobs'. There is simply no comparison.
With a treatment path that had as many twists and turns as Jobs' did, including months of inconclusive tests to try to figure out why he couldn't put on weight, what exactly should Apple have disclosed, and how much would all the conflicting information have affected the price of AAPL? I wish Apple and Jobs could have been more forthcoming, but I understand fully why they weren't: better to keep your mouth shut until you have a definitive medical answer upon which you can make a public statement.
News flash...Wasserstein died yesterday. Seems like irregular heartbeat is not quite so straightforward!
I want to apologize to AI members for losing my cool in an earlier post. In allowing my negative feelings toward SJ to emerge, I realize I went a little too far. I am, at heart, a peaceable - love-thy-neighbor guy - except when attacked.
Unfortunately, there is something about SJ's high handedness that just pushes my buttons. That head of steam has been building for quite some time and has been erupting for the last few weeks.
Again, mea culpa.
Dr. Millmoss, it may not be apparent to you that SJ has a God complex, but it is certainly apparent to me. Are there other AI members who think that? I couldn't say.
Dr. Millmoss, you came aboard AppleInsider in April of this year and have already spread nearly a thousand posts over this forum. The tone of your posts reflects that you, like SJ, also may have feelings of superiority.
Dr. Millmoss, you, a newcomer, appear to be attempting to rise to the level of guru for AI. I believe AI forum was doing quite nicely before your pearls of wisdom, thank you very much.
So, Dr. Milmoss, please, stay off your high horse and don't criticize or lecture other members until you see to your own short-comings. In spite of what you may think about yourself, you don't 'know better' than all the other AI members.
Aside to AI members: The above paragraphs were my nice way of asking, "Who the hell do you think you are?" But, I wouldn't actually come out and say that to Dr. Millmoss's face. I'm too much of a gentleman. He's the one making rude put-downs.
Dr. Millmoss, please note that I don't enjoy being attacked,. Don't start a feud by dissing a fellow AI member. Keep that in mind when you respond to this or any other member's post. Remember, you started this - uh - dialog. On second thought, maybe you should just 'consider the source' and ignore this post entirely. I wouldn't want you to have to 'lower' yourself to my level.
BTW, Dr. Millmoss, are you an M.D,, Ph.D, or is the Dr. an affectation? You needn't answer that, either. Consider it a rhetorical question. I wouldn't want to embarrass you as you tried to do to me.
Oh, good grief. You complain about being attacked but do so by leveling a series of personal attacks. That would have to be called irony.
BTW, I challenged your opinions with an alternative view. I realize some people take that sort of thing as a personal attack, but of course it isn't that at all. It's what people are supposed to do when they disagree with someone. Attacking them personally is what they should not do.
As for my nickname on these boards, no worries about "embarrassing me." Google is your friend.
Comments
Sometimes you don't even have to work to prove your point -- somebody does it for you. The above post contains all of the fallacies, exaggerations, and misinformed ideas I (and others) have previously described. Some sort of congratulations are in order.
If you wouldn't mind my asking, which post were you referring to?
If you wouldn't mind my asking, which post were you referring to?
Yours. It perpetuates all of the common myths and fallacies, and dismisses all of the arguments against them using typical misrepresentation tactics.
Yours. It perpetuates all of the common myths and fallacies, and dismisses all of the arguments against them using typical misrepresentation tactics.
Thanks for responding. What you see and describe was not my intention. It is possible that you are correct and I am completely incorrect. Or perhaps you misinterpreted something I wrote (that is far more likely because I have read your posts and agreed with what you said to a great extent) - or something in between. Like any normal person, I will be more likely to withdraw whatever erroneous statement I made if you express your disagreement in a direct response, without sarcasm, and backed by specific statements.
Thanks for responding. What you see and describe was not my intention. It is possible that you are correct and I am completely incorrect. Or perhaps you misinterpreted something I wrote (that is far more likely because I have read your posts and agreed with what you said to a great extent) - or something in between. Like any normal person, I will be more likely to withdraw whatever erroneous statement I made if you express your disagreement in a direct response, without sarcasm, and backed by specific statements.
Sorry, but I do get tired of having to repeat myself. I think it should be very clear where I disagree with your remarks, if only you'd read what I've already written. Like any normal person, I get a little annoyed when repetition is demanded.
You must know for instance that the SEC is currently investigating whether Apple properly disclosed information about Steve's health in the period leading up to his liver transplant. So you cannot accurately say that he is entitled to complete privacy. It does come down to what was disclosed and when, and how the rules on disclosure are interpreted. Consequently it is very annoying to have the concept constantly repeated that disclosure is a matter of people being "nosy." You can't simply dismiss the entire disclosure issue that way. It's simply inaccurate.
I was not happy when he came back in the first place, he was fired in the '80s for a good reason, and that reason never went away.
Demote him to head of marketing, or fire him, Apple.
Steve Jobs has served his function at Apple, and it's time for him to go.
I was not happy when he came back in the first place, he was fired in the '80s for a good reason, and that reason never went away.
Demote him to head of marketing, or fire him, Apple.
If you've read my diatribes re: Tyrant S. Jobs, you know I agree with you; however, some people worship him. Why, I cannot fathom. One poster on this thread referred to him as Apple's "savior". I guess some people thought Jim Jones was their savior and worshipped him. The "Heaven's Gate" programers thought their leader was their savior. Charles Manson and David Koresh had that kind of a following, also. I think Jobs has brainwashed us just as those 'saviors' had done to their followers. SJ has held Apple's OS's over our heads and foisted sub par, obscenely expensive computers on us. In order to use those Apple OS's, we've purchased those computers, glorified them, and have been described as a cult by non-believers because we've done so.
Wait, now. Those members who blindly worship him are going to pounce on us disbelievers and pour the wrath of hell onto us. We have, with great audacity, besmirched their God and their religion. We'll soon know who those 'fundamentalists' are.
Somebody should look up the definition of the word "savior." For those who are too lazy, it is not a religious term. It means "a person who saves something or someone." It would take a major effort of willful historical revisionism to argue that the leadership Steve Jobs provided had nothing to do with saving Apple from their virtually derelict state. How could anyone not know that? I mean, we're not exactly talking obscure or ancient history here, though you might think so by the way some people talk.
The utter nonsense some people spout, it boggles the mind.
Sorry, but I do get tired of having to repeat myself. I think it should be very clear where I disagree with your remarks, if only you'd read what I've already written. Like any normal person, I get a little annoyed when repetition is demanded.
You must know for instance that the SEC is currently investigating whether Apple properly disclosed information about Steve's health in the period leading up to his liver transplant. So you cannot accurately say that he is entitled to complete privacy. It does come down to what was disclosed and when, and how the rules on disclosure are interpreted. Consequently it is very annoying to have the concept constantly repeated that disclosure is a matter of people being "nosy." You can't simply dismiss the entire disclosure issue that way. It's simply inaccurate.
You don't need to repeat anything for me because I have read your posts and I already said that I agree to a great extent. I did not demand repetition, I asked for an explanation on your discourteous, indirect and sarcastic remarks on a reply to another person- and got nothing satisfactory.
I agree with your second paragraph and it contradicts nothing of what I wrote. If you want to debate it point by point, fine with me. Otherwise, a simple "sorry" would more than do.
You don't need to repeat anything for me because I have read your posts and I already said that I agree to a great extent. I did not demand repetition, I asked for an explanation on your discourteous, indirect and sarcastic remarks on a reply to another person- and got nothing satisfactory.
I agree with your second paragraph and it contradicts nothing of what I wrote. If you want to debate it point by point, fine with me. Otherwise, a simple "sorry" would more than do.
I am not apologetic, and see no reason to be apologetic. If you're talking about insulting and discourteous, consider your characterization of people who would like to see Apple follow the SEC rules that apply to all public corporations as being cynical, nosy gossipers, and lacking in decency. If you intended anything else but insults by selecting these terms, it's difficult to know what it was.
Wasserstein passed away.
So much for the 'irregular heartbeat' excuse, 'serious but stable' excuse and BS transparency comparisons.
Stress may have been a factor. He recently married an Asian woman who was 25 years younger.
It's not as if the finance industry is a walk in the park stress-wise, and the guy lived in it for decades. He did pretty darn well for himself money-wise, but we all still die eventually.
Also, does the race matter here, are asians supposed to be particularly stress inducing marriage partners? Are you playing on stereotypes here? Seems to be pretty odd that the race and age difference are the only two pieces of information you gave regarding his wife.
It's not as if the finance industry is a walk in the park stress-wise, and the guy lived in it for decades. He did pretty darn well for himself money-wise, but we all still die eventually.
Also, does the race matter here, are asians supposed to be particularly stress inducing marriage partners? Are you playing on stereotypes here? Seems to be pretty odd that the race and age difference are the only two pieces of information given regarding his wife.
That was a real classy response to an ignorant post.
Thank you for the post. No Bashing here, I really mean it.
Unfortunately, there is something about SJ's high handedness that just pushes my buttons. That head of steam has been building for quite some time and has been erupting for the last few weeks.
Again, mea culpa.
Dr. Millmoss, it may not be apparent to you that SJ has a God complex, but it is certainly apparent to me. Are there other AI members who think that? I couldn't say.
Dr. Millmoss, you came aboard AppleInsider in April of this year and have already spread nearly a thousand posts over this forum. The tone of your posts reflects that you, like SJ, also may have feelings of superiority.
Dr. Millmoss, you, a newcomer, appear to be attempting to rise to the level of guru for AI. I believe AI forum was doing quite nicely before your pearls of wisdom, thank you very much.
So, Dr. Milmoss, please, stay off your high horse and don't criticize or lecture other members until you see to your own short-comings. In spite of what you may think about yourself, you don't 'know better' than all the other AI members.
Aside to AI members: The above paragraphs were my nice way of asking, "Who the hell do you think you are?" But, I wouldn't actually come out and say that to Dr. Millmoss's face. I'm too much of a gentleman. He's the one making rude put-downs.
Dr. Millmoss, please note that I don't enjoy being attacked,. Don't start a feud by dissing a fellow AI member. Keep that in mind when you respond to this or any other member's post. Remember, you started this - uh - dialog. On second thought, maybe you should just 'consider the source' and ignore this post entirely. I wouldn't want you to have to 'lower' yourself to my level.
BTW, Dr. Millmoss, are you an M.D,, Ph.D, or is the Dr. an affectation? You needn't answer that, either. Consider it a rhetorical question. I wouldn't want to embarrass you as you tried to do to me.
I too think the comparison of Jobs' and Wasserstein's cases is not exactly of the apples to apples variety.
Wasserstein's illness was a lot more straightforward to diagnose and treat than Jobs'. There is simply no comparison.
With a treatment path that had as many twists and turns as Jobs' did, including months of inconclusive tests to try to figure out why he couldn't put on weight, what exactly should Apple have disclosed, and how much would all the conflicting information have affected the price of AAPL? I wish Apple and Jobs could have been more forthcoming, but I understand fully why they weren't: better to keep your mouth shut until you have a definitive medical answer upon which you can make a public statement.
News flash...Wasserstein died yesterday. Seems like irregular heartbeat is not quite so straightforward!
I want to apologize to AI members for losing my cool in an earlier post. In allowing my negative feelings toward SJ to emerge, I realize I went a little too far. I am, at heart, a peaceable - love-thy-neighbor guy - except when attacked.
Unfortunately, there is something about SJ's high handedness that just pushes my buttons. That head of steam has been building for quite some time and has been erupting for the last few weeks.
Again, mea culpa.
Dr. Millmoss, it may not be apparent to you that SJ has a God complex, but it is certainly apparent to me. Are there other AI members who think that? I couldn't say.
Dr. Millmoss, you came aboard AppleInsider in April of this year and have already spread nearly a thousand posts over this forum. The tone of your posts reflects that you, like SJ, also may have feelings of superiority.
Dr. Millmoss, you, a newcomer, appear to be attempting to rise to the level of guru for AI. I believe AI forum was doing quite nicely before your pearls of wisdom, thank you very much.
So, Dr. Milmoss, please, stay off your high horse and don't criticize or lecture other members until you see to your own short-comings. In spite of what you may think about yourself, you don't 'know better' than all the other AI members.
Aside to AI members: The above paragraphs were my nice way of asking, "Who the hell do you think you are?" But, I wouldn't actually come out and say that to Dr. Millmoss's face. I'm too much of a gentleman. He's the one making rude put-downs.
Dr. Millmoss, please note that I don't enjoy being attacked,. Don't start a feud by dissing a fellow AI member. Keep that in mind when you respond to this or any other member's post. Remember, you started this - uh - dialog. On second thought, maybe you should just 'consider the source' and ignore this post entirely. I wouldn't want you to have to 'lower' yourself to my level.
BTW, Dr. Millmoss, are you an M.D,, Ph.D, or is the Dr. an affectation? You needn't answer that, either. Consider it a rhetorical question. I wouldn't want to embarrass you as you tried to do to me.
Oh, good grief. You complain about being attacked but do so by leveling a series of personal attacks. That would have to be called irony.
BTW, I challenged your opinions with an alternative view. I realize some people take that sort of thing as a personal attack, but of course it isn't that at all. It's what people are supposed to do when they disagree with someone. Attacking them personally is what they should not do.
As for my nickname on these boards, no worries about "embarrassing me." Google is your friend.